Discrimination in the Name of Religious Freedom

A movement is afoot in state legislatures across the country to disenfranchise LGBTQ Americans.

There are a surprisingly high number of bills being introduced in state legislative sessions which outrightly sanction and enforce LGBTQ discrimination. These bills are called “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” (RFRA), but don’t be fooled. These lawmakers are looking to codify LGBTQ discrimination.

Last week the Georgia Senate, with a vote of 37-15, approved their controversial RFRA (House Bill 1023). The bill doesn’t want the state’s Christian religious conservatives, fundamentalists and evangelicals to “substantially burden” their personal religious practices and beliefs.

What, you may ask, could possibly be such a burden to Christians in Georgia that a state law is necessitated?

Burden, according the bill, is defined as:

“‘Burden’ means any government action or implementation or application of any law, including, but not limited to, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by any person or that directly or indirectly pressures any person to engage in any action contrary to that person’s exercise of religion, including, but not limited to, withholding benefits, assessing criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, and exclusion from government programs or access to government facilities.”

But let’s be clear, the only religious folk lawmakers hope to protect from a “substantial burden” is Christians. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and other non-Christian Georgians don’t merit protection. As a matter-of-fact, these demographic groups — along with atheists and LGBTQs — can easily be subject to egregious forms of discrimination, bigotry and hate crimes under the guise of religion.

“Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” like Georgia’s are springing up around the country. And the bogus claims look like this in justifying denying services to same-sex couples:

A family-owned bakery in Gresham, Oregon called “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” wanted to “practice their Constitutional right to religious freedom;” a florist in Washington state wanted to maintain her “relationship with Jesus;” and a photography company in New Mexico ” would “gladly serve gays and lesbians” by taking portraits. But photographing same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies would “require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

Sweet Cakes by Melissa closed the family shop and moved the business to their home making it clear LGBTQ dollars are not wanted.

While South Dakota’s and Arkansas’s RFRA failed to advance in their state’s legislative sessions North Carolina’s and Alabama’s bill did. In same-sex marriage equality states (like North Carolina and Alabama) state judges and state employers like justices of the peace can refuse to officiate same-sex nuptials and private businesses can refuse services to same-sex couples citing it violates their religious belief.

The argument cited by religious conservatives for discrimination against LGBTQ Americans is not confined geographically. And the last place one expects not to see this type of discrimination rearing its head is liberal Massachusetts. But it has.

Gordon College, a small conservative Christian college on the North Shore, prides itself on upholding the tenets of religious freedom. And in so doing, the college tested its boundaries with the recent Supreme Court case “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.”

The “Hobby Lobby” case ruling of last year allowed family-owned corporations to cite religious objections to opt out of the nation’s Affordable Care Act (ACA). ACA required employers to cover certain contraceptives for women. Gordon’s President D. Michael Lindsay — along with 14 influential religious leaders from across the country — asked President Obama for an exemption banning discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. (Immediately following the Hobby Lobby decision the Supreme Court granted Wheaton College, another evangelical Christian liberal arts college outside of Chicago a temporary injunction allowing the college to refuse providing contraception.)

This was hardly, though, the first time a Massachusetts school has tried to paint discrimination as religious freedom.

As recently as January of 2014, Boston’s Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a complaint against Fontbonne Academy, a religious college prep school in Milton, MA, when the school fired Matt Barrett — after offering him employment at the school as Food Services Director — when he stated on a form that his spouse was a male.

“If I’m planning and making meals for students, I’m not sure what my being gay has to do with the job,” Matt says “I’ve always done well in my work, and was excited about working at Fontbonne. All I did was fill out the form honestly.”

The “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” springing up across the country are a backlash to the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage and the growing fear of when the Supreme Court legalize it nationwide.

They are a perversion of the Constitution and our history of religious freedom.